Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 610 of 1975, decided on 5th February; 1978.
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 18‑6‑1975, in S. A. O. No. 102/1975).
----S. 13(3), (ii), (a)‑Ejectment proceedings on ground of personal requirement‑Concurrent findings in matter of personal need, one given by District Judge and other recorded by High Court after discussing entire evidence relevant on point‑Question of considering suitability, of shop for personal need of landlord, held, just does not arise, in circumstances‑Petition dismissed.
Raja Muhammad Muzaffar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Inayat Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Amjad Khan, Advocate- on‑Record for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 5th February, 1978.
‑This is a Civil' Petition for Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment of a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 18‑6‑1975, dismissing the appeal (S. A. O. No. 102/1975) of the petitioner‑tenant and thereby upholding the judgment of the District Judge, Sialkot, dated 3‑2‑1975, ordering his ejectment from Shop No. 704/8 situated in Bazar Kalan, Sialkot.
Ejectment of the petitioner was sought on the grounds of default in the payment of rent, personal need and subletting. The application was rejected by the Rent Controller, vide his order dated 19‑4‑1974. On appeal before the District Judge, the landlord‑respondent confined her case to issue No. 2, namely the ground of personal need the other two grounds were thereby abandoned. The finding of the learned Rent Controller on the point was reversed in appeal by the learned District Judge who ordered the ejectment of the petitioner. On appeal before the High Court this decision was maintained by a learned Single Judge. It was argued before the High Court that the landlord‑respondent had failed to establish that the shop in dispute was needed by her son who, according to the petitioner, was in occupation of another suitable' shop in the same locality. The learned Single Judge on perusal of the evidence on the record held that there was no evidence that the particular son of the respondent for whose benefit the shop in dispute was required occupied any other shop. The learned Single Judge, therefore, did not consider it necessary to go into the further requirement of section 13(3) (ii)(b) of the West Pakistan Urban tent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, i.e. suitability of the other shop for his need. Before the High Court, a question with regard to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the sub‑tenant had not been impleaded as an appellant was raised but this objection was properly disposed of by the learned Single Judge who decided the appeal on merit and the petitioner has not made a grievance on this score before us.
In support of this petition it is argued that the High Court has not' properly construed the provisions of section 13(3) (ii)(b) of the Ordinance and that the respondent had failed to establish that her son was not in occupation of another shop for his need.
As far as the legal provision goes, it is correct that the landlord or, her male child in order to successfully maintain an ejectment petition should not be in occupation of another shop suitable for his needs. However as rightly held by the High Court, if it is as a fact established that the respondent's son did not occupy another shop, it would be unnecessary to go into the further question with regard to the suitability of another shop for his needs because this question would only arise if it is proved that the respondent or her male child is indeed in occupation of another, shop. Besides, we now have concurrent findings in the matter of personal need, one by the learned District Judge and the other recorded by the learned Single Judge of the High Court who has referred to and discussed the entire evidence relevant on the point.
In conclusion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer